APHC010666562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34411/2025 Between: 1. OURUSU MOHAN BABU, S/O.O.KRISHNAIAH AGED 33 YEARS,SRINIVASAPURAM.KOTHAPALLI, CHINNAMANDEM.MALLUR.CUDDAPAH.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, RAJAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT (PRESENT ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT). 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN DMF TRUST, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT,RAYACHOTY. KADAPA DISTRICT (PRESENT ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.) 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action on the part of the p. 2 respondents herein, not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.7,08,936/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Eight thousand Nine hundred and Thirty Six Only) with interest to the petitioner even though total works were executed I. completed Providing bore Well ,PU,Pset and Pipeline at srinivasapuram H/O.Kothapalli GP in Chinnamandem Mandal (Rs.4,50,000/- ),ll. Providing pump set and pipeline and storage facility in Pathavattamvandlapalli H/O.Kothapalli (GP ) Of Chinnamandem (M)(Rs.2,58,936/-) as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequentially to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 7,08,936/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eight thousand Nine hundred and Thirty Six Only) with interest to the petitioner forthwith, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to ditect the respondents to forthwith consider releasing the amounts Rs.7,08,936/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Eight thousand Nine hundred and Ttiirty Six Only) payable to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Smt. K. Devasri Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.7,08,936/-, payable to the petitioner for the work executed by him i.e. „Providing bore Well, PUP set and p. 3 Pipleine at Srinivasapuram, H/o Kothapalli Gram Panchayat in Chinnamandem Mandal and 2) Providing Pump Set, Pipeline and storage facility in Pathavattamvandlapalli, H/o Kothapalli Gram Panchayat of Chinnamandem, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted the written instructions of respondent No.2. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.7,07,808/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding execution of work and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.7,07,808/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: “Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”. 7. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.2, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.7,07,808/- p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight only) payable to the petitioner for execution of the aforementioned works, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 23.02.2026 IKN p. 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34411 of 2025 Date: 23.02.2026 IKN